This also disqualifies all blobbers...----- Waterproof definition of an RPG -----
RPG:
3) You actually have to be a tangible character in the game, and the act of playing that character is the main drive of the game. Player and "avatar(s)" must be inseparable.
-----------------------------------------------
3) is needed to differentiate RPGs from "simple" simulations and strategy/tactics games like XCOM/JA/etc. in which you control characters - and they are completely stat driven, might even level up -, but you aren't (usually) one of them. Instead you are some kind of invisible "manager" figure with no stats of your own.
Actual cRPG have to find a new brand ...
What about games like Gothic or System shock? By your definition, they can't be considered RPGs because they don't fit rule number 1.I'll just copy my own post from the other topic, since clearly many here are still confused:
----- Waterproof definition of an RPG -----
RPG:
1) The outcome of an action is not determined by (physical) player skill, but by the character's stats (+RNG often).
2) There needs to be some kind of character growth/levelup/stat increase/etc.
3) You actually have to be a tangible character in the game, and the act of playing that character is the main drive of the game. Player and "avatar(s)" must be inseparable.
-----------------------------------------------
1+2) is kind of the baseline here. If this is not given, your game is simply not an RPG in any shape or form.
3) is needed to differentiate RPGs from "simple" simulations and strategy/tactics games like XCOM/JA/etc. in which you control characters - and they are completely stat driven, might even level up -, but you aren't (usually) one of them. Instead you are some kind of invisible "manager" figure with no stats of your own.
It is also needed to differentiate RPGs from something like Crusader Kings, which undoubtedly has RPG parts, but so much of the gameplay isn't even bound to your current character that it becomes a hybrid (of many things). Same thing with The Sims, which actually seems damn close to a pure RPG at first glance, but you aren't really a character here, instead more of a god-like figure with a voyeuristic interest in that character, as proven by the fact that you remain at some place while your character can be off somewhere entirely else.
Story? Irrelevant. Many RPGs don't even have a story (or it doesn't matter at all for the gameplay).
Character creation? Irrelevant. Many RPGs just give you a predefined char, and as long as that one "grows" in stats... Your ability to identify with a character doesn't matter for any genre definition.
Combat? Irrelevant. While most RPGs use their stats mostly for combat, it is by no means required.
Except for (what do you mean with total/partial?) abstraction of action and some form of character development, all your listed points are irrelevant for being an RPG. They certainly matter for certain sub-genres, but not for the "one to rule them all".
That is an entirely useless definition.In my opinion the definition of RPG should be quite open. Imagine a closed colletions of features. The game, to qualify as a RPG, should have any combination of at last 50% of those featurs.
Definitions must be clear, strict and exclusive, otherwise they are worthless buzzwords - which is how most devs/players/"journalists" use them, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to be better than that.
Games can be hybrids.What about games like Gothic or System shock? By your definition, they can't be considered RPGs because they don't fit rule number 1.I'll just copy my own post from the other topic, since clearly many here are still confused:
----- Waterproof definition of an RPG -----
RPG:
1) The outcome of an action is not determined by (physical) player skill, but by the character's stats (+RNG often).
2) There needs to be some kind of character growth/levelup/stat increase/etc.
3) You actually have to be a tangible character in the game, and the act of playing that character is the main drive of the game. Player and "avatar(s)" must be inseparable.
-----------------------------------------------
Narrative Emphasis.
Games can be hybrids.
I'd call Gothic an Action-RPG and SS an FPS/RPG.
Then maybe you should have put cRPGs in the voting title, as until now I thought we were talking about RPGs, not cRPGs... especially coming from the other thread and thinking this was more of the sameThe intent of this thread was to identify the minimum requirements to be a pure, non-hyphenated, cRPG.
Back in the day we didn’t have much in the way of Narrative Emphasis. Kill Foozle or Explore Shit was good enough for us, and those games were genuinely fun. But the guiding light of games like Ultima, Fallout, Pool of Radiance, Starflight, and even stuff like Secret of Mana showed us the narrative emphasis could be so much better.
Back in the day we didn’t have much in the way of Narrative Emphasis. Kill Foozle or Explore Shit was good enough for us, and those games were genuinely fun. But the guiding light of games like Ultima, Fallout, Pool of Radiance, Starflight, and even stuff like Secret of Mana showed us the narrative emphasis could be so much better.
These days, we don’t tolerate a lack of narrative in our RPGs.
I definitely agree that some kind of mechanical character development has to happen, where choices are made that determine how your character will interface with the world. Where I take it a step further is requiring some kind of narrative that shapes your moment to moment choices more than merely wandering around exploring or killing things.I'm not sure who all we is, but as a method of defining the genre I think narrative is the last thing I'd look to. Any fucking genre can have a strong narrative or a weak narrative. If you said narrative choices then okay maybe, but even then would that make Walking Dead an RPG? Fuck no. I think it has to be mechanics based.